April 2, 2007

Which is, you know, an old blogosphere flame war, but I see there's a transcription going around -- of this notorious segment of the diavlog -- that has a glaring error that is being used against me. I'm not going to link to any of the many blogs that are using this text, and I don't know what enterprising loser took the initiative to type it out, but it's perfectly easy to Google if you want to know who's purveying the defective text:

these are flame wars, and what I'm trying to say on the overarching point, is that the left side of the blogosphere is vicious and unfair and nasty to me, and I don't like it, and I'm trying to ask you why that's the way they treat me when I support most of what they're for. Meanwhile, on the right side of the blogosphere, where there's much less overlap, I think, I am treated in a very warm and connecting kind of way. And you're really just kind of undermining my point, uh, by bringing that up like that.

Here's what it should be, with the mistakes corrected in boldface.

These are flame wars, and what I'm trying to say on the overarching point, is that the left side of the blogosphere is vicious and unfair and nasty to me, and I don't like it, and I'm trying to ask you why that's the way they treat me when I support most of what they're for. Meanwhile, on the right side of the blogosphere, where there's much less overlap with what I think, I'm treated in a very warm and connecting kind of a way. And you're really just underlining my point by bringing that up like that.

See that last one! I don't say "undermining." I say "underlining." I will wait for the apologies from all the nasty, vicious characters who thought I'd hilariously misspoken and who used that as an occasion for mocking me. (And I didn't say "kind of" before it either, which just shows how sloppy the transcriber was. )

What I find hilarious is that the reaction to this video clip is really just underlining my point! The leftosphere is nasty and vicious to me. And they are trying to assassinate my character, as I say in the clip. They jumped to make themselves into the example of the very thing I was talking about. Ironic, no?

But let me admit something. I do think they have the motive to try to destroy me, and I can see why the left treats me nastily -- unlike the right -- even though I share their opinion on practically all the key issues (except national security).

I have obviously disaggregated myself from the fortunes of the Democratic Party. I will say what I have to say without trying to protect the party's interests. That's dangerous to them, and they should be afraid for me to have clout in the blogosphere. They have reason to portray me as crazy, stupid, drunk, or whatever the latest attack is. They should worry. And, as I say in the video, I will stand my ground.

The source of this distance I feel is exactly what I was talking about in thoseposts that ignited the old blogosphere flamewar: the way so many Democrats changed how they talked about sexual harassment in order to defend Bill Clinton. (Specifically, I was monumentally impressed by Stuart Taylor's comparison of the way Clinton and Clarence Thomas were treated.)

Let's take a closer look at what I wrote back then, when I mocked that photograph.

Bill Clinton, apparently eager to influence bloggers to give his wife favorable coverage as she sought the presidency, sat down for a lunch and a photo shoot with a select group of them. They ate up the lunch and the flattery it represented and posed looking thoroughly pleased. I think bloggers should maintain their independence and their critical stance, so I hated to read their gushing posts and to gaze on their shiny, happy faces in that photograph. I meant to be cruel to them.

(If they are cruel to me, I concede that I started it and that I meant to be nasty. In that sense, I can't complain... except for effect.)

My cruelty took the form of trying to ruin the picture they thought was so nice by merging it with the idea of Monica Lewinsky. The last thing Bill Clinton wants as he offers his prestige to the cause of his wife's quest for power is for us to think about Monica Lewinsky.

So I called attention to the fact that Jessica Valenti, positioned right in front of Clinton, did look a bit like that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I thought the photograph was set up in a way that was detrimental to the Clintons' interests, and I thought that was funny and that it presented an opportunity for some painful satire. I made it quite nasty, and I did it deliberately. I'm not sorry I did it. I mean to castigate feminists and so-called feminists who cozy up to Clinton. They were surely justified in fighting back at me, and I can understand why they want to ruin me.

But I did achieve my goal and ruin the photograph. You've got to admit that you cannot look at it the way the shiny, happy posers meant you to. The photograph is -- as they say -- reframed. If I must suffer for that achievement -- which I sought -- so be it.

It's been said a thousand times - the right seeks out converts, the left seeks out heretics.

And never forget that politics is the left's raison d'être. Damn near every aspect of their lives is structured around some political stance, so if your question even the tiniest part of their opinions they take it as a personal attack. Hence, you're "mean-spirited" if you don't agree with them wholly.

I do think they have the motive to try to destroy me, and I can see why the left treats me nastily -- unlike the right -- even though I share their opinion on practically all the key issues (except national security).

And then you immediately without pause go on to describe in detail another key matter you disagree with them about, something near and dear to their black little hearts: the House of Clinton. These are people who really and truly bought into the meme that the whole maryanne about Monica consisted of nothing but the vast rightwing conspiracy spearheaded by the evil sex-obssessed hateful xtian Ken Starr.

I have suspected for a long time that BDS is in large measure nothing but blind payback for impeachment and the way they perceived that the right treated Clinton generally. Never ever comprehending --or wanting to-- that it was Clinton's own behaviors and then the lies about his behaviors that got him in trouble.

And when you diss on Clinton the way you do you wander right smack-dab into the middle of it.

No, I don't. I concede I was deliberately mean and that I do in fact understand why Democratic politicos want to destroy my reputation. And as for my "strategic goal" -- what are you saying it was? Their main beef about me is that I won't go strategic with them. That's the whole basis of feminist support for Clinton. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy and absurdity. Is that a "strategic goal"?

your pearl-clutching claims that The Big Bad Left is out to "destroy" you, is truly a sight to behold. Ma'am, we're not out to "destroy" you. We just think you're completely ridiculous. Big difference.

Oh please. If you only thought she was ridiculous, your crowd wouldn't constantly be driving through here with your pearl-clutching claims on what she's allowed to write about, what she's allowed to believe, what she's allowed to get angry about, what she's allowed to drink, etc. You guys are fixated on her. In contrast, I find Feminsite, FDL et al to be ridiculous - and thats why I don't waste my time trolling their sites.

But I wish Valenti would drop in. I'd ask her if she caught Clinton checking her out? Or if his security detail invited her up to his hotel room? And whether or not she would have accepted?

Clinton was rarely criticized by pro-choice left-of-center women’s groups for his philandering and exploitive treatment of women. Clearly, this is because of his position on abortion which trumped everything else. This is the white elephant sitting in the middle of the room.

Professor Althouse is a liberal law professor who doesn’t toe the party line and dared make reference to the white elephant. The left side of the blogosphere seems to have the view that “you’re either with us or against us” and is quick to launch ad hominem attacks on anyone claiming to be a liberal who doesn’t remain within their strict “group think” guidelines.

I do in fact understand why Democratic politicos want to destroy my reputation.

The staggering arrogance and narcissism (or is it just flat out paranoia) of this statement is just beyond belief.

A few left-wing bloggers derive pleasure from picking on you because you present such an easy target. Not only are you incredibly thin-skinned but you also have a mean streak a mile wide. So while you can dish insults, you react viciously when someone is mean to you.

Of course this orchestrated effort to destroy you it is all over the web. All we have to do is google it. Problem is, when googled, almost nothing shows up.

You elevate this minor blog war into a vast left wing conspiracy to destroy you, even inventing words and phrases to describe it. Then you feed the flames by constantly posting about it(even though you claim you don't want to discuss it further).

And I also love after being called a drunk you take great pains to then post several reference to drinking and a picture of you with a glass of wine.

Hey Ann, I am reminded of dinner with a Catholic couple last night. They were looking for a new church as their priest has strongly advocated that abused spouses stay in the marriage no matter what. He then went on to say that they could not meet their commitment to their Church anyplace but at that Catholic church. While they were free to worship God where they might, they must attend and give money to THAT Catholic Church.

The left of your party is making the same power move. You see it with Senator Lieberman and yourself. The big tent is not so large, and people to the right or even middle of the tent are being attacked. Orthodoxy, socialist orthodoxy, is becoming the rule of the day.

In the end, some thinking people will leave. Where they will go, I cannot say, for they are neither conservatives nor Republicans at heart. But they will surely leave.

They call you names and call you ridiculous, etc. yet spend a lot of time paying attention to you. Why not ignore you or let you slip into the insignificance they claim you deserve? They can't be afraid of you? You can't be influential?

Freder, Doyle, et al, why are you here? Why do you care? Are you so small minded as to get some thrill over trolling this lair of stupid right wing zealots? Isn't there some better place to use your great insight and intellectual heft?

You not going to destroy Ann (obviously) and most of us who like her, go back long enough to "get it", we don't care what you think.

Fatmouse said..."It's been said a thousand times - the right seeks out converts, the left seeks out heretics."

I think it's much, much easier to figure out why the left hates her than why the right likes her. I don't know that anyone's trying to "convert" Althouse (I do think that intelligent and learned persons eventually start to feel the pull of Burke, but that's a conceit), so that's not really satisfactory as an explanation of why she's "treated in a very warm and connecting kind of way" by the right.

I was asked about this last week, and I really don't have a good answer, but I think that the short answer is that those on the right can disaggregate the personal from the political. For my part, I like her, I like her sense of humor, we seem to share similar perspectives on several issues, and I don't mind disagreeing on some issues with people I like. I mean, in some ways, I'm totally mystified as to why it's even a question: Concededly it's a little strange that as a result of the internet, people develop a strong sense of loyalty and affection towards, become emotionally invested in, people they've not met IRL (and I don't just mean re Ann - one of my co-bloggers is in Iraq, and I think about and worry about him daily). However, with that said, that you can like someone and still disagree with them is something that seems so completely innate, such natural behavior IRL, that it mystifies me why it'd be any different in the blogosphere. The bottom line is that you connect with the people you connect with. Ain't no use tryin' to make more sense of it than that.

Or maybe that's just a righty thing. Maybe those on the left really do act the same in real life, and avoid like the plague people who disagree with them.

What's. to. get. Simon? Ann gets all pissed off because a couple blogs make fun of her for vlogging while apparently drunk. Then for the next couple days she goes out of her way to make references to her drinking. She was deliberately trying to draw attention to her self and suck people into her vortex so she could say "see how mean lefties keep calling me a drunk, its all over the web". Apparently no one took the bait, because now she has to fall back on the tried and true, "that chick had a tight sweater and her boobs were sticking out" to draw attention to herself.

Maybe it's all part of Ann's performance art project. Perhaps she knows that most of the left blogosphere doesn't care about her in the least. She knows that "Democratic politicos" could care less about her reputation, but she just wants to see who will rise to her defense and who will call her batshit crazy.

She was deliberately trying to draw attention to her self and suck people into her vortex so she could say "see how mean lefties keep calling me a drunk, its all over the web".

No, she was making light of their stupidity. Its a joke. Lighten up. Because I still think we need to take you out and get you drunk. Maybe even laid.

Simon: I don't know that anyone's trying to "convert" Althouse

I hope she doesn't convert. Dems and Repubs are like a married couple - both contribute in their own way to the relationship, and both compliment the other's weaknessess. Problem is, our "spouse" has been off in the woods having a nervous breakdown since the Florida mess in 2000. So we need more sane Dems on the Left, like Althouse.

The left treats Prof. Althouse disdainfully the way one would treat a traitor. I don't understand their vile, juvenile and personal attacks. At the same time I think that there are some on the "right" who have changed positions on the major issue of our day (e.g Sullivan, John Cole) and are now treated poorly (if not as juveniley) by the right.

I think the right side of the blogosphere is nice to Prof. Althouse the same way that the left side is nice to Sullivan (and the like). They want to keep her on their side because it reminds people that it is not just a lock step party ideology which finds their argument compelling.

I do find it odd that Prof. Althouse says that the right side of the blogosphere treats her in a "warm and connecting kind of way." Particularly if you include libertarians among those on the "right", the right side has said some of the damning things about Prof. Althouse though they usually do not revert to the scatological and juvenile to attempt to make their points.

I think the right side of the blogosphere is nice to Prof. Althouse the same way that the left side is nice to Sullivan (and the like).

Not so sure about that. The Right side of the blogosphere rarely links to her, and doesn't seem to follow her. I got here via a rare link from Captian's Quarters, but I read BelmontClub, Powerline, Malkin, etc and Althouse rarely shows up on their radar. I'm wondering if any other right-wingers came here by accident, or via Instapundit?

Who are you quoting there, Freder? I would never have mentioned breasts if I hadn't been impressed by the many glaring images of breasts on the supposedly feminist blog Feministing. The combination of that photograph and a blog that uses breast imagery to spice things up means something.

But quite apart from that, it is absolutely a feminist tradition to write -- as I did -- about the depiction of the female body, including the way women choose to dress and deport themselves in the presence of male power. For example, do you think the way Marilyn Monroe dressed when she sang "Happy Birthday" to President Kennedy is a legitimate subject for feminist analysis? I certainly do. Really, I should have written in much more detail about it, and I may yet do so.

The left treats Prof. Althouse disdainfully the way one would treat a traitor.

This assumes that she was once on our side. I think what really annoys the left is Prof. Althouse is a self-proclaimed "not a conservative" but she rarely takes a stand for any left-of-center positions. Yet she is all too ready echo right wing talking points that are aimed at destroying prominent Democratic politicians (anything to undermine the Clintons, Kerry hates the troops, Edwards has a big house, Gore wastes energy, Obama is a lightweight). She rarely, if ever, criticizes the Republican candidates.

Althouse's actions on that loggingheads episode were not wrong. I don't think she was even mean. She was honest and direct in her angry response to Franke-Ruta's subtle but visibly obvious and dishonest sideswipe.

More people, liberal and otherwise, need to directly express righteous anger and set healthier examples for others who seem not to have even a commonsensical understanding of health. People such as, oh say... Hillary! Clinton.

Obviously, it is not a direct quote, but a sarcastic reinterpretation of your original post. Someone with a highly refined sense of humor such as yours (who can make snide jabs at those who would imply you are a drunk) --which I apparently lack--should realize that.

Fen said..."I'm wondering if any other right-wingers came here by accident, or via Instapundit?"

I can't even remember how I first found my way here, but I became a regular fixture when I started reading her off-blog writing. That was what got me hooked, and then, y'know, Bob Wright once observed that this blog is very much an extension of Ann's persona, and you know my theory, comments passim, it's like marmite: you either love it or you hate it.

Freder Frederson said..."[To say that the left treats Prof. Althouse disdainfully the way one would treat a traitor] assumes that she was once on our side. I think what really annoys the left is Prof. Althouse is a self-proclaimed 'not a conservative' but she rarely takes a stand for any left-of-center positions."

She voted for George McGovern, you moron! She supported Jesse Jackson and voted for Al Gore! Didn't you watch the divalog? You can count on one hand the number of Republicans she's voted for in thirty years! People on the right don't give money to Russ Feingold, Freder! And if just voting for democrats doesn't satisfy you, she's pro-choice and pro gay marriage! It's just incredible to me that you can make these allegations with what one must assume is a straight face. My God, law school admissions standards have dropped if they let you in the door. Did you even take evidence?

"Yet she is all too ready echo right wing talking points that are aimed at destroying prominent Democratic politicians (anything to undermine the Clintons, Kerry hates the troops, Edwards has a big house, Gore wastes energy, Obama is a lightweight)."

Now there's a legitimate point. Ann doesn't carry water for the major name Democrats.

OTOH, I haven't seen her carrying water for any of the major Republicans either.

Fred, look at it like this; there is no way to say something mean/snarky/funny about Bush that hasn't been spoiled already by the "Bush=Hitler, only nastier" crowd. That's it. Well's been poisoned, only the true believers find it tasty. (See also "Why is South Park funny and Keith Olberman not?")

The other Republicans? Well, I would guess Rudy might be in for some Althousian broadsides, and Fred Thompson is such a good caricature of himself that it's hard to do better, but I think a good writer might be able to do something with the raw material.

Otherwise, Romney? Dull as dishwater. McCain? Dead man walking (although I personally would like to see more forks stuck in him). The rest? Rest who?

But damn, the Democrats. Talk about a target-rich environment. My feeling is that when you go to the circus, you're supposed to laugh at the clowns. And maybe, just maybe, Ann cares more about the Democratic Party that she does about the Republican Party, and maybe, just maybe, the pathetic wattage of the Democratic Party's so-called leading lights moves her to snark.

(For the record, I wouldn't vote for Feingold for President unless he were running against one of the other Democrats listed, and his Republican challenger was George Pataki. But then, I'm mostly Libertarian, and Feingold is mostly Socialist. Still, he's mostly honest about it, so he gets a lot of integrity points other pols -- and so-called-progressive pundits -- don't.)

It's just incredible to me that you can make these allegations with what one must assume is a straight face.

As one of the Jackson sisters would say "What have you done for me lately". For all her liberal bona fides (and that she supports Feingold considering his stance on the war just highlights her hypocrisy), what she writes on this blog reflects none of that.

Even her defense of gay marriage has been tepid. She wasn't much of an outspoken supporter of it on this blog when it was under consideration in Wisconsin. As for being pro-choice, well yeah she is, but she rarely if ever broaches life issues on this site. The point is, that when she does use this site to advance a political issue, it is invariably a Republican one.

And btw McGovern ran for president 35 years ago. Any liberal credit one earned for voting him expired long ago.

I think the "left" (which is a very imprecise term anyway) largely treats Ann as she deserves to be treated. I am sorry but this is true. I, for one, am "left", that is I agree with Ann on practically all issues except national security. I do think that Ann is a good person, who, however, is incredibly thin skinned. I understand her stance on national security issues. I disagree with it because I think Bush's policies undermine American security; but reasonable people may perfectly disagree on that. What I dislike about Ann's posts is her frequent pettiness, but, hey, we're all human.

With regard to the Clinton/bloggers episode, I think much of Ann's meanness stems from the fact that she, who reasonably considers herself to be a true feminist (and who consistently took feminist positions throughout her life), was not invited to that luncheone. I will never ever believe that if Ann were to be invited, she not only would have attended, but also would have "posed." :) Judging from Ann's photographs from Texas, she is photogenic and strikes a good pose on pictures. So, I think that her meanness in that episode is in a substantial part due to such an understandable human emotion as envy. I don't think that such a smart person as Ann really thinks that Clinton undermined feminism by his inappropriate PERSONAL behavior. Yeah, I wish that feminist organizations had condemned him more for his abuse of power with respect to women (of course, it is for Clinton's policies and actions as President why women organizations gave him more of a pass than he deserved), but to say that he seriously undermined feminism is a huge stretch.

I think that Ann's perception of left blogosphere as hostile to her has an unfortunate impact on her choice of topics and the way she frames the debate. Nothing wrong with that--it's Ann's blog, but I think it helps to explain why Ann doesn't comment on some of the facts that a person who is a liberal law professor would have been reasonably expected to comment on. And it's sad.

It's also worth pointing out that Ann rarely, if ever, engages in a substantive debate on national security issues and Bush's administration utter disregard for civil liberties. I think she's informed enough to be able to contribute to national discourse in a more substantive way than writing Instapundit-like snarky comments on Democrats. That's my 2 cents.

Game. Set. Match! Nothing cements one's political identity more than a 35 year old vote against Nixon. C'mon. Voting for Feingold recently in WI has been a pretty easy vote, and being pro-choice and pro gay marriage hardly makes you a liberal or Democrat. Maybe 20 years ago.

Not carrying water for Democrats is not the same as recycling misleading right wing talking points about Democratic candidates.

Also, your assertion that Feingold is a socialist is laughable. Feingold is one of the most libertarian Democrats, and perhaps all politicians. He alone voted againt the original Patriot act and was in a small minority who voted against its re-authorization.

And regarding Ann's support of Giuliani, he is one of the most authoritarian and anti-libertarian candidates. Just recently, he stated that he believes a President has a power to indefinitely held a US citizen (!) on national security concerns. If there's more anti-libertarian, and yes, anti-American, idea, please let me know.

Ann rarely takes a stand for any political positions. This isn't a political blog.

But that doesn't matter. If she's not consistently taking stands for lefty positions, with every ounce of her power, she can't be a liberal. Or a moderate liberal. Or just a moderate. She's just gotta be a conservative lapdog.

I don't think Mark gets the point of this blog. Hint: It's not to learn about Ann's viewpoint on things.

It is possible that Ann is envious. It's also possible she sees the fawning of the left re: a lunch with BC as something to be lampooned. The content of other posts and topics introduced that I've read in the past year+ makes the second possibility more likely.

Hmmm, I'd like some linky goodness Fred because I wasn't aware of Ann's support of Rudy, but....

-- Pro Choice-- Pro Gay-Rights-- Strong on national defense-- Hated by social conservatives

I have reservations about Rudy because he's not as "small government" as I'd like, but all things considered, he's not bad. If a liberal has to vote for a conservative (because of national security issues, say) he seems to be the choice, no?

You are one of the smartest commenters here. That's why it's unfortunate that you didn't get a point of my post.

I never stated that I believe that the purpose of Ann's blog is to learn Ann's stands on political issues. Most of Ann's posts are unpolitical. I've been reading this blog almost since the very start.

That said, I stand by all that I said in my original post. A lot (vast majority) of all of Ann's political posts are consistent with right wing talking points. Again, nothing wrong with that; but it helps to undestand why many on the left dislike Ann's views (not personal dislike (most people could care less), but her political views).

I'm in advertising and that means "messaging". Certain cardinal rules (general in nature)apply to Ann's situation and the furies that are now surrounding it.

First rule: where you place an advertisement is where from you draw your responses. In Ann's case bloggers are beating up on bloggers. Ann's message exists primarily on the blogosphere and she draws her criticisms and praises from those who encounter her placement.

Second rule: don't generalize responses to an advertisement entities who have not encountered it. In this case, Ann is attacked by the leftwing but it is the blogosphere leftwing. It isn't the general left wing, which is much larger and doesn't participate on the blogosphere and frankly has never encountered the message.

You cannot, as some have done here, take some snippy remarks made by a few bloggers on the blogosphere and up the levels to "attacks by the liberals".

I get a laugh out of those who think that blogging will make a huge difference in the battle between right and left. It doesn't here, it really doesn't most anywhere and bloggers take their potential for impact far too seriously.

mark, I lampoon mostly Democrats as well, mostly because they disappoint me so often. It's more of a how can they be doing this again -- don't they ever learn from history thing. I want them to succeed and believe that airing the dirty laundry will help. Perhaps Prof. A. is of the same mindset.

When EJ Dionne, Paul Krugman, or David Corn start beating up on Ann and the "breast controversy," I will acknowledge the "left wing," has taken notice--until then, I am going with tempest in a teapot involving perhaps 3 or 4 primary bloggers and assorted blog readers, at most totally no more than a couple hundred folks.

Freder:"[T]hat she supports Feingold[,] considering his stance on the war[,] just highlights her hypocrisy"

I disagree with Justice Scalia about the dormant commerce clause. And I adhere to my Sensei's views far more closely than one must "adhere" to any politician's view to support that politician. That make me a hypocrite? How about Justice Alito and his Zedner opinion - does it highlight my hypocrisy that I continue to strongly support his elevation to the Supreme Court despite his apparent stance on the use of legislative history (an issue of far greater importance than the war, I might add)? I agree with a great deal of what Ann's written in the last two decades, but she's reached some conclusions that I cannot agree with. Does it make me a hypocrite that notwithstanding serious disagreements, she's one of the three brightest stars in my legal sky? When did disagreeing on particular issues while retaining general support become hypocrisy?

I'm on record as noting that "Life is non-partisan," that I don't "buy the argument that being pro life sites ... [a person] comfortably on the left-right scale," and that "one's view on abortion has far more to do with whether one considers an unborn child to be a human life of some value or not. There's nothing in my political philosophy that answers that question, and there's nothing in the liberal political philosophy that answers it. Now, my political philosophy gives me some clear answers about what to do with that belief once it's there, but it doesn't establish the underlying and animating belief." If not hoisted by mine own petard, I'm at least bound by my own logic, which means I can't disagree with you too strongly. Nevertheless, what I think I can say within the compass of my previously-stated views is that "reproductive rights" (a coy euphemism for abortion on demand which I absolutely detest, by the way, nearly as strongly as - and for the same reasons that - Ann rejects the term "Jessica Valenti Breast Controversy") is beyond any doubt a liberal cause célèbre, and that whatever the underlying illogic of the matter, no matter that it's hugely oversimplifying, the fact is that in the aggregate, for the average person, if the only thing you know about that person is whether they're pro-life or pro-choice, you have a much better than even chance of guessing which way they vote.

Mark:"Just recently, [Giulliani] stated that he believes a President has a power to indefinitely held a US citizen (!) on national security concerns. If there's more anti-libertarian, and yes, anti-American, idea, please let me know."

You know what, Mark, I agree with you that it's a travesty. But it's also the view that the liberal wing of the Supreme Court (absent Justice Stevens) signed on to Hamdi, over a dissent by Justice Scalia. Formalism 1, pragmatism 0. Actually, come to think of it - see Althouse, The Vigor of the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine in Times of Terror, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 1231 (2004). Formalism 2, pragmatism 0. (I decline to address your previous remarks).

There are two ideas entwined in Ann's post. The first concerns the way in which bloggers are pressed to subvert their observations and reactions to partisan demands; the second deals with the different manners that have become common between the web's leftosphere and rightosphere. It's the second that strikes me as the more interest.

Ann says that she is attacked as a conservative, Republican-leaning blogger, when in fact she is a slightly left-of-center Democrat-leaning blogger who nevertheless has no interest in tempering her blogging to support the institutional interests of the Dem Party. The amazing part of this aspect of the story is that the club most often used against her is that she is supposedly anti-feminist. It's amazing because Ann was hardly the only observer who noted the pathetic manner in which feminist interests had been subverted to the partisan imperative of defending Clinton's indefensible conduct during the 90s (and thereafter). We're still feeling the heat from that explosion. Given the importance of the feminist brand to the Dems for partisan reasons, it's also not surprising that the reaction against Ann's act of apostasy should be so bitter. Nothing new there.

The impact of all that on the manners prevailing in the leftosphere and rightosphere is reminiscent of De Tocqueville's characterization of the differing impacts of democratic, aristocratic and revolutionary ideas on the manners of society at large. I imagine that the rhetorical bomb-throwers see themselves, as they did in de Tocqueville's telling, in avant-garde, even revolutionary, terms. By definition, they're the radical "reformers" seeking to remake social institutions, by overthrowing whatever they see as the "old order." It's all very disorienting for anyone caught up in it, and becomes even more so when the "old order" becomes identified with the Bush Admin (as it has in the leftosphere). An early casualty is bound to be the norms of civility and civil discourse associated with the "old order."

I think that's where the crucial difference is: from your comments I get the feeling that you genuinely care for Democratic ideas (not necessarily Democratic politicians); I (and I think most other non-Bush loving crowd) don't get this feeling from Ann's posts, notwithstanding her liberal bona fides. I don't want to offend Ann, but her posts all too frequently seem as taking cheap and unfair shots at Democrats out of sheer pettiness.

I think you are not entirely correct in your view of Hamdi. Yes, Scalia and Stevens took the most anti-authoritarian position, while Thomas took the most pro-authoritarian position. However, other member of moderate-liberal wing (Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg) did not state that President has a power to indefinitely hold a US citizen. The fact that they did not expressly address this issue doesn't mean that they agree with that radical notion. I can bet you whatever amount you want that when and if this issue comes before the Court, it will hold that the Executive does not have the power to indefinitely detain a US citizen.

Probably something to do with the fact that - aside from the well publicized cases of Loima and Diallo - violation of black males was institutionalized in the NYPD during his term. The disregard for civil liberties wasn't even an open secret, it was just SOP. Then there was his brilliant idea to use welfare recipients as slave labor, etc. etc.

Mark, as I see it, the plurality in Hamdi essentially refused to acknowledge that the writ is either available for citizens, or it has been suspended by Congress. That's a gross oversimplification, I concede, but the fact is that the majority let pragmatic concerns of the moment override what one hopes was their better judgment. It wasn't exactly Korematsu-style kowtowing, but it certainly wasn't Youngstown/Nixon-style standing up to the executive.

If you've been here for a while, you'll know that I'm a formalist, that my view of these things is fiat justitia ruat coelum. The constitution isn't a suicide pact, and certainly there is a place for pragmatic concerns in statutory and constitutional interpretation, but where its command is plain, its command governs, even when that makes it harder to do what we need to do, and even when it cuts against my normative preferences.

As to the future - as with so many things, it's up to Justice Kennedy. It seems clear (to me, at least) that Roberts and Alito have a more expansive view of executive power than do I (or does Scalia), although I doubt they go as far as Thomas. So that leaves Kennedy in the middle, and we'll see what he does. My bet is that you're right, and personally, I think that's a good thing (at least as far as citizens are concerned - it's an entirely different matter if you want to talk about non-citizens detained in non-America, so to speak).

Doyle, I don't understand how any of that relates to setting back race relations thirty years. What does "violation" mean in that context? Is "civil liberties" really a race issue, and if so, how? (I mean, does Bushitler ChimpyMcHalliburton's NSA program target blacks?) Is "welfare recipients" some kind of liberal code for "black people"? I would have thought that there would be a serious equal protection problem if a state made welfare available only to one particular racial group. I mean, what's the actual argument here?

Leftists: If you find Althouse "ridiculous", then why do you spend so much time posting screeds against her? You repeatedly prove her points about the depressingly exclusionary tactics of your side. And you fall into the trap of providing publicity for the positions and persons you hate.

BTW - This comes from a guy on your side!

If you read into her constant complaints about the left, you'd see my point - she's disappointed(!) in the behavior of the "leftosphere". I think she'd really rather like you guys, but you don't give her much to like. She's not disappointed that you don't like her, but that you behave like assholes to anyone out of line.

The funny thing is, if you pursued this rationally, I think you'd find that Althouse is more on your side on everything else than many Democrats in Congress!

mark said: "her posts all too frequently seem as taking cheap and unfair shots at Democrats out of sheer pettiness."

I don't know... I don't usually find Althouse to be all that petty. There are times, but it's often balanced with solid argument. Truly, it's not that hard to find fault in any of the political class - on any side. Your "cheap and unfair" are probably my "obvious and direct". Fairness in politics?

FEINGOLD TO INTRODUCE MAJORHEALTH CARE REFORM BILLRather than dictating how states will achieve universal coverage, the bill provides them with the flexibility to choose their own way of covering all their residents, provided they meet specified minimum requirements.

Private School VouchersI believe that we have a responsibility to strengthen all of our public schools so that every child is assured of the opportunity for a good education. I oppose using taxpayer money to fund private school vouchers because I do not believe that this approach will strengthen public schools.

So, a Socialist? Maybe not in the Swedish model, but not far from it. Taken in conjunction with his manifest willingness to allow the government to regulate political speech, the portrait is of a man who believes society should be managed from the top down, and is unapologetic about it.

As I said, I have no personal beef with Feingold; he's an honest Progressive, and I have no problem at all with that. Just because I don't agree with his approach doesn't mean I can't respect his position. But calling him a Libertarian (in the classic "a minimalist government is the best government" formulation) is more than a stretch.

As to Rudy, god knows he's no Libertarian either; but then, as long as we have the New York Times and Washington Post around to publish any state secret any civil servant with an axe to grind cares to leak, there's only so much damage a Rudy can do.

As regarding how Rudy would d set back race relations 30 years, I suspect he'd do it exactly the same way Bush set back Freedom of the Press, and Gay rights, and Abortion rights, to the standards of the 1950s. (In other words my Progressive friends, keep worrying about evil Republicans spitting into the wind; it will prevent you from worrying about things like backpack nukes....)

Doyle said: "Were you aware of the blog Feministing when you wrote the caption "Let's just arrange these bloggers randomly?"

The second post makes the answer to that absolutely clear. The first post is hardly anything at all. I just thought it was funny that the photographer obviously arranged the photo to put the best looking people in front and to hide the less presentable ones. It's a hilarious photo. The second post is the main one that makes people mad -- along with the comments in the first one that it plays off of. Valenti appears in the comments, and I respond to her. I would have never written the second post if I hadn't been amused by her self-flattery in my comments.

People could have easily ignored my post and, as I wrote in the second one, they should have. Why they chose to give me so much profile, I don't know. But they did, and I'm not backing down. It's obvious that some very high profile bloggers, like Atrios and TRex have a big thing about me and have for a long time.

Wow, what an achievement: to "reframe" a photo. No wonder Ann must be destroyed. Quick poll here: how many of you would NOT instantly come up with some sort of salacious remark upon seeing Bill Clinton in a photograph with ANY well-endowed, attractive woman?

If you've been here for a while, you'll know that I'm a formalist, that my view of these things is fiat justitia ruat coelum. The constitution isn't a suicide pact

But as a formalist, there are some things you just can't get around. And one of them is that the Writ of Habeas Corpus can only be suspended in cases of "rebellion or invasion". Any presidential candidate who thinks he has the right to suspend habeas (which is a congressional power anyway) when those conditions do not exist should be denounced immediately by anyone who believes in the Constitution and is unfit to be president.

Barry - I don't know... I don't usually find Althouse to be all that petty. There are times, but it's often balanced with solid argument. Truly, it's not that hard to find fault in any of the political class - on any side. Your "cheap and unfair" are probably my "obvious and direct". Fairness in politics?

Well said. There's also this, that politics is a comic affair, regardless of left and right. To add an answer to Simon's musings, far above, I think Althouse's low opinion for politics and politicians may appeal to more moderates and libertarians than leftists; it certainly seems to offend our doctrinaire house donkeys.

I have to say that I do prefer Topical Althouse to Vortex Althouse. The shrieking moths sucked in and spun wingless out of the Vortex don't add much to either.

A lot of this is writerly aesthetics. Ann is a clever and surprising writer. You can spend 10,000 hours on the internets and you will not find one committed left blogger who has a scintilla of wit or irony, two of the most important tools for good writers to have. About the best they can muster up is the kind of grim-faced, doom-infused mockery of Frank Rich or James Wolcott. I know they think calling Bush Hitler or a chimp is funny...but that's sort of the problem in a nutshell right there.

Back when Ann was voting for McGovern, it was different. The left brought the funny and the insightful, and the right was where most of the humorless fanatics lived.

This is why the left blogs go after her so disproportionately. (Freder is engaging in wishful thinking when he says, "Perhaps she knows that most of the left blogosphere doesn't care about her in the least.") They know their writing skills are limited to what's required to preach to, and enforce discipline on, the already-converted. They don't want their minions to go lifting the flaps under other tents. A writer like Ann, a good liberal in many respects, is much more dangerous to the left than a right-wing ideologue like Michelle Malkin or Hugh Hewitt. It's easy to demonize people like them; it's not so easy to demonize writers like Ann.

But they're trying anyway -- by altering her words, and implying that her apostasy is the sad byproduct of drunkeness.

You have a point about Hamdi; however, I disagree that the majority didn't stand up to the President. Yes, they should have stood up even more, but remember, Bush lost on the merits of his argument: only Thomas fully accepted it. And when push comes to shove, the Supreme Court will rebuke Bush's outrageous expansion of the Executive's power. Why do you think they pulled the plug on warrantless surveillance program, after all the assurances how supposedly vital it is to the national security that the Executive could spy on citizens without a warrant? I think the reason they did is clear: to prevent the program from getting a review in the Supreme Court. The same with Padilla, as I am sure you're aware of.

In any case, I don't think that anyone MUST blog about anything; my main point was that the choice of what to blog about may provide some useful information. If you remember, Ann focused on alleged deficiencies in Judge Taylor's opinion. While that opinion was imperfect, I think Ann's choice to blog about it the way she did reveals something about her political preferences. And that's fine with me.

Also, please note that I am not saying Bush necessarily had ulterior motives; the program may have been superbly run; however, "trust me" with respect to secret activities of federal government with respect to US citizens is antithesis to libertarian/american ideas. It is authoritarian.

And that's where the political genuis of the Bush administration comes into play: by playing on and constantly stoking fear, they were able to convince a lot of the public (unfortunately including Ann) that they need to accept this vast expansion of the executive power or else evil terrorists will come and kill us all. And it worked for a while, and in many cases, still works :(

It's important because Paglia is Althouse's idol, Paglia is everything Althouse seeks to be.

The liquor is bad news and undercuts Althouse legitimacy. And, refusing to remain above the fray ala Paglia....is just playing right into their hands and giving them more grist.

I've said this before: this whole non-episode is nothing more than a turgid little soap opera, the likes of which Paglia, William Buckley, et al...would never never inject themselves into ...the way Althouse has repeatedly done in the endless recaps of the whole thing.

OK, I dashed off that last comment before I finished reading your entire post. I'm stunned, yet pleased that you have finally taken personal responsibility for starting the conflict, for attacking Jessica and the others in nasty, personal terms that were designed to be character assassinating.

And if Giulliani has claimed such a power, I strongly disagree with him.

Well that's exactly what Giuliani did say (he said he wanted to use the non-existent authority "infrequently"). Yet do you or Ann condemn Rudy for it? Not at all. In fact, Rudy is apparently Ann's guy. And we are supposed to believe she is a "not a conservative" Constitutional Law Professor.

As our other favorite "not a conservative" law perfessor would say. Heh, indeed.

Mark:"And that's where the political genuis of the Bush administration comes into play: by playing on and constantly stoking fear, they were able to convince a lot of the public (unfortunately including Ann) that they need to accept this vast expansion of the executive power or else evil terrorists will come and kill us all."

And in the preceding paragraph....

"Also, please note that I am not saying Bush necessarily had ulterior motives; the program may have been superbly run; however, "trust me" with respect to secret activities of federal government with respect to US citizens is antithesis to libertarian/american ideas. It is authoritarian."

[Emphases added.]

Actually, it sounds like you are explicitly stating that Bush has ulterior motives and acts on them aggressively.

The one case where I think the Bush Administration was clearly out-of-bounds was its stance on the Padilla case; the other accusations against the government (SWIFT datamining, incoming international cell records datamining, extraordinary rendition, etc.) are far less cut-and-dried. (The SWIFT program in particular was a devastating loss, and didn't represent any more infringement on U.S. citizens' privacy than extant-and-accepted U.S. banking notification requirements. I know, because my job is in supporting international banking software, specifically Trade Finance. I know how SWIFT works, I know what the laws are, and I know we lost a huge window on the way money moves around the world.)

The Civil Liberties arguments against the Bush Administration are in my eyes the weakest arguments, simply because there just isn't any meat there. You've got one name; Padilla. Otherwise it's handwaving and histrionics. Find an argument that's going to impress someone who hasn't fully imbibed the kool-aid.

But I'll buy you're larger point, I guess. I can't think of a single thing that's happened during the Bush Administration to make me re-think the potential threat represented by non-state actors succored by failed states and financed by jihadist-controlled petrodollars....

It's obvious that some very high profile bloggers, like Atrios and TRex have a big thing about me and have for a long time.

Atrios? He rarely mentions you. Have you ever even been named Wanker of the Day? Talk about insulting upward. You just wish you could be Wanker of the Day. That way you would really have something to complain about.

The Civil Liberties arguments against the Bush Administration are in my eyes the weakest arguments, simply because there just isn't any meat there.

Yeah right. The Bush Administration opens up secret prisons in old KGB facilities in eastern Europe where it tortures (or come so damn close it still violates all kinds of U.S. and international laws) detainees who are held incognito without any kind of process or access to international monitors at all. Innocent people are kidnapped from foreign countries and whisked away to secret prisons where they are held for months and mistreated and then dumped far from home. In Iraq and Afghanistan, longstanding military interrogation procedures are thrown out the window which leads to widespread abuse up to and including death by torture of several dozen detainees.

Freder Frederson said..."Well that's exactly what Giuliani did say (he said he wanted to use the non-existent authority "infrequently"). Yet do you or Ann condemn Rudy for it? Not at all."

I can't speak for Ann, but the reason I haven't said a word about it is because I've never heard him make any such claim. After your consistent record of completely baseless assertions that you've entirely failed to support with documentary evidence, you'll understand if I say "link please."

"And we are supposed to believe she is a 'not a conservative' Constitutional Law Professor."

The only valid basis for making that assesment is her classroom, which you've never been in, and her scholarship, which you've never read. So your point is worthless, and I decline to engage it on the merits.

On a much less snarky note, because I know a thing or two about banking and data mining and because so many other early charges against the Administration turn out to be bogus after investigation (flushed Korans, anyone?) and because critics are so eager to hop onto any bandwagon that happens to be going the correct direction....

I'm taking all these "torture" arguments with a grain of salt, you know? Because while I have no trouble with the formulation "never trust the government" I don't think the corollary is "always trust those in opposition to the government."

The second post is the main one that makes people mad -- along with the comments in the first one that it plays off of.

What I believe made people go from annoyed to angry was when you insulted Jessica's appearance, basically calling her ugly. She showed up and you got obvious pleasure out of taunting her and having your crowd of commenters taunt her.

The mean, ugly, vicious, nasty, character assassination started with you and your own words.

Today you finally took a step to admitting your own responsibility and your own behavior, and in doing so undermined your entire "I'm a victim at the center of the universe defense of the past several months."

I feel like your followers, who have been parroting your old, no-longer-operative talking points, are being played for dupes. (But I bet they enjoy it.) Because now you have pulled the rug out from under them by admitting that you were cruel and nasty and started the whole thing.

You may think you have ruined the picture (big whoop if you did), but Ann, you have destroyed your own repuation in the process.

After your consistent record of completely baseless assertions that you've entirely failed to support with documentary evidence, you'll understand if I say "link please."

Now when do I ever do that. I provide more links than almost anybody on this site. Just because you don't like the fact that I can back up my assertions doesn't give you the right to accuse me of making baseless ones.

You know I just love backing you into a corner Simon and then seeing you twist. Because, like Ann you will never back down. I will provide the link, and you are going to sputter and fume especially when you see the source.

And of course my point about Prof. Althouse and the constitution is that it is amazing that she would support a man for president who holds such a bedrock constitutional principle in such contempt. I don't need to read anything she has written or sit in on her classes to see this glaring oversight.

I clearly meant no ulterior motives beyond pushing to the limits the assertion of the Executive power. My point was that even if we assume that the assertion of the vastly expanded power is for "good" reasons: i.e. protecting us from terrorists, it is still thoroughly anti-libertarian and yes, anti-American. To me, there's nothing more anti-American than saying: oh, give us the power, we need it to protect you, just trust us. The whole point of the checks and balances is to prevent one branch from assuming too much power. And note, that I made an almost implausible assumption that Bush administration would not abuse this power; as many revelations demonstrated (e.g. national security letters), this administration's disregard for laws is inherent (pun intended).

Freder,That's the best you've got? A link to Ramesh saying that Ed Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review, and that Crane had asked Giuliani the same question a few weeks ago whereupon the "mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently"? "My friend Margot's friend Suzie told her that Jimmy told Mike that..." That's not completely worthless (it would be entirely so were it appearing anywhere else), but it's so vague and attenuated from a primary source as to resist serious comment.

To be clear, I'm not avoiding the question. If the question "does the President have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no charges being brought and no judicial review" was directly presented and Giuliani answered "yes the President has that authority although I would use it infrequently," then I very strongly disagree with that. Nevertheless, I don't approve of hanging people by vague descriptions of what they might have said in response to vaguely-recalled questions (cf. this post and comments here), and I don't propose to start now. And having just spent a week castigating people for attacking Ann without first understanding the relevant context, you're absolutely crazy if you think I'm going to do the same to Giuliani.

As to your inability to support your arguments with evidence, the example that most immediately jumps to mind (I'm going to cut you a break and assume that you didn't intend the NRO link above to be taken as evidence) is your repeated insistence in this thread that United States Attorneys are sui generis, despite your complete failure to provide a shred of caselaw or statutory text, and total failure to provide a coherent rejoinder to blackletter law and numerous cases that cut against your position. That's just the most memorable (and risible) example that jumps to mind from recent weeks; I'm sure I could provide others, but I think most of the regulars here are as aware of your shortcomings and limitations, Freder, as they are of mine.

As to your "point about Prof. Althouse and the constitution" being that "it is amazing that she would support a man for president who holds such a bedrock constitutional principle in such contempt," the problem is that you haven't even established a prima facie case that Giuliani actually said what he claimed, let alone that Ann is aware of the allegation that he said it. Thus, even on its own terms (terms that are themselves quite dubious: I believe that John McCain "holds ... [several] bedrock constitutional principle in ... [total] contempt," but if he is the GOP nominee in 2008, since any Democrat he will conceivably face in that election holds far more bedrock contitutional principles in even more total contempt, it is far from "amazing" that I will support the lesser of two evils) your argument fails: You can't seriously believe it's going to fly for you to hang her from her failure to condemn remarks that you've made no case that she is or should be aware of. And as a general matter, the only circumstances in which you "don't need to read anything she has written" is if you don't propose to pass comment on her views on anything. Oops! Too late!

"Maxine Weiss said..."If Althouse is gonna do what she does, she then better be above reproach."

No, being reproachable is a technique. It's part of the vortex. It draws them in.

ASX said...".What I believe made people go from annoyed to angry was when you insulted Jessica's appearance, basically calling her ugly."

Pathetically wrong. Jessica showed up on MY blog and wrote: "It's a picture; people pose. And I'm not sure I understand your logic anyway. If I 'pose' for a picture (as opposed to sulking and hunching over?) then I deserve to be judged for my looks? I don't see anyone talking shit about the other bloggers smiling pretty for the camera."

Clearly, one thing she's doing there is proclaiming herself pretty, which I consider funny and lame. I said don't flatter yourself, not to say that she's "ugly," but just to say that she's not so gorgeous that she should assume everyone thinks she's pretty. Almost no one is that good looking. It's like Victoria Principal doing those "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" ads. And even that generated endless mockery, and she was clearly beautiful.

Basically, you should NEVER assume other people think you're beautiful. It's embarrassing. And I just felt like needling her about it, especially since it SO wasn't my point.

Amanda said..."From what I understand, women only put on their breasts to make Ann feel less pretty."

Mmmm-mmm. The feminists are getting feministier all the time, now, aren't they? Lady, it's not a beauty contest, and bragging about being prettier than another woman has never been feminist and has always been catty, so tuck your little cat tail between your legs and slink on back to your own litter box of a blog. Go serve the interests of man power-seekers. Isn't that what you do best? I mean, when they are willing to tolerate your efforts. I'm sure that will work out well for you and for women.

"Pathetically wrong. Jessica showed up on MY blog and wrote: "It's a picture; people pose. And I'm not sure I understand your logic anyway. If I 'pose' for a picture (as opposed to sulking and hunching over?) then I deserve to be judged for my looks? I don't see anyone talking shit about the other bloggers smiling pretty for the camera."Clearly, one thing she's doing there is proclaiming herself pretty, which I consider funny and lame."

Ann, how do you read from what she said the self-proclamation of prettiness? I think in the context it's clear that she felt judged for her pose. And you yourself admitted today that "you made it quite nasty" in your effors to castigate feminists who in your view were being hypocritical. So, I think that her reaction was perfectly normal. Sorry.

The whole tempest in a tea pot over the photograph couldn't be less interesting to me -- I quickly scanned over the posts since that sort of content isn't what draws me here. Althouse has admitted to being intentionally snarky in her posts, so I find it odd that she would expect anything different in return.

That having been said, as a fan, longtime reader and sometimes commenter, I was pretty disappointed by her eruption on bloggingheads. Garance's comment seemed innocent enough, and Ann not only opened the door, as we lawyers say, but used a doorstop given Garance's associations. There's a big difference between standing your ground or taking up for yourself and coming off as self-indulgently wounded by an imagined slight. Thin-skinned is as good a description as I've read. The situation became all the more stark when Althouse almost immediately suggested that targets of unwanted comments on internet grow thicker hides.

Moreoever, whatever Althouse meant to say, it sure sounds like "undermining" on video. I wouldn't be so quick to impugn the trascript as an intentional misrepresentation. Regardless, the whole language of character assassination is way over the top and a bit cheap.

Not to reopen old wounds, but this latest controversy reminds me alot of that Reason Online thing a few months back. I doubt Althouse is in the frame of mind for accepting advice at the moment, but here goes (I offer it with the most sincere intentions): If you want people to take you seriously, don't play the victim.

I second Patrick completely; again, I am a long time reader of Ann and I too, am very put off by Ann's being too thin-skinned and willingness to see conspiracy theories floating among left-of-center bloggers. It negatively affects my perception of whatever Ann blogs about (and with the exception of her politics' posts, she's an interesting and original author/observer). And I am being completely sincere.

With regard to the Clinton/bloggers episode, I think much of Ann's meanness stems from the fact that she, who reasonably considers herself to be a true feminist (and who consistently took feminist positions throughout her life), was not invited to that luncheone. I will never ever believe that if Ann were to be invited, she not only would have attended, but also would have "posed." :)

So, Simon...would YOU vote for a Presidential candidate that feels the President has the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no charges being brought and no judicial review??

As long as Simon never heard him say it, of course (because the National Review is after all an organ of the MSM out to smear Republicans. So of course they are going to fabricate things about Republican candidates to discredit them).

Althouse: No, I don't. I concede I was deliberately mean and that I do in fact understand why Democratic politicos want to destroy my reputation. And as for my "strategic goal" -- what are you saying it was? Their main beef about me is that I won't go strategic with them. That's the whole basis of feminist support for Clinton. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy and absurdity. Is that a "strategic goal"?

OK..I concede you didn't say wrong, you said mean. It is just that "mean" has negative connotations, and I thought you were conceding that point.

As for strategic goals...I was referring to your strategic goal of giving the photo a specific definition, one radically different than the one the participants wanted, and were willing to accept the attacks from the Left as a tactical loss to achieve this goal.

By the way, I agree with you completely about the hypocrisy of the feminists and their support of Clinton.

Gimmeabreak said..."So, Simon...would YOU vote for a Presidential candidate that feels the President has the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no charges being brought and no judicial review??"

Depends who the other candidate is. I mean, it sounds awful, and I'm not suggesting I think such a candidate should be elected, but the reality is that in an election, someone is going to win, and I don't believe that we always have the luxury of voting for a good candidate. Sometimes you have to pick the lesser evil - and less evil is still less evil. I'll vote for a pro-choice federalist if the alternative is a pro-choice antifederalist, for example. Do I like the idea of voting for a pro-choice candidate? No. Will I? If necessary, you bet. A vote should always be conditional on (a) who the alternative is, and (b) the reality that one candidate or the other is going to win. What's that Rush song? "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice?" If you don't vote, you supported whoever won.

Freder, you have no standing to be snarky here. You've been called on your inability to back your assertions up, and repeatedly fail to deliver. Come back when you've got a credible link.

Yep, that's right Simon, I got my best bud Ramesh Ponnuru to plant a story in the National Review Online slandering both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani just so I could make you and Ann look like a couple of fascist supporting hypocrites.

Freder: would support a man for president who holds such a bedrock constitutional principle in such contempt.

Are you talking about Padilla?

Freder: a couple of fascist supporting hypocrites.

You seem to be defining broadly and attacking narrowly again. The issue was unsettled law, was arguable [see SCOTUS ex parte Quirin], and hardly a bedrock constitutional principle. the case reversed itself back and forth:

/begins

March 2002: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, purported mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and al-Qaida's operational planner and organizer, allegedly suggests Jose Padilla target up to three high-rise buildings that use natural gas with a radiological "dirty bomb."

May 8, 2002: Padilla arrives at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after an overseas trip, carrying $10,526, a cell phone and e-mail addresses for al-Qaida operatives. He is arrested on a material witness warrant.

June 9, 2002: Padilla is listed as an "enemy combatant" and transferred to the Defense Department.

Dec. 18, 2003: The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals orders Padilla to be released from military custody within 30 days and if the government chooses, tried in civilian courts.

Jan. 22, 2004: The 2nd Circuit suspends its ruling after the Bush administration appeals the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

March 3, 2004: Lawyers for Padilla meet with him for the first time since his incarceration at a naval brig in June 2002.

June 28, 2004: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rules that Padilla should have filed his appeal in federal court in Charleston, S.C., because he is being held at a Navy brig there, rather than in New York.

Sept. 9, 2005: A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the government can continue to hold Padilla indefinitely.

Nov. 22, 2005: Padilla is indicted by a federal grand jury in Miami on charges that he conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas. The charges do not include any allegations of a "dirty bomb" plot or other plans for U.S. attacks.

Dec. 21, 2005: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig chastises the administration for using one set of facts to justify holding Padilla without charges and another set to persuade a grand jury in Florida to indict him. Luttig said the administration has risked its "credibility before the courts."

Jan. 12, 2006: Padilla pleads not guilty to charges alleging he was part of a secret network that supported Muslim terrorists. The charges could bring a life in prison sentence.

April 3, 2006: Supreme Court rejects Padilla's appeal, although Chief Justice John Roberts and other key justices said that they would be watching to ensure Padilla receives the protections "guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants."

Aug. 16, 2006: Federal trial court in Miami, Florida dismisses conspiracy to murder charges against Padilla, leaving the most serious charge still pending a charge that could bring a 15 year prison sentence.

Oct., 2006: Padilla moves to dismiss the federal criminal case against him alleging that he had been tortured and that proceedings had been delayed too long from his arrest in May of 2002.

Jan. 30, 2007: The U.S. Court of Appeals reverses the August 2006 decision and reinstates the conspiracy to murder charge with a potential life sentence.

/its too bad we can't have a civil discussion about this without you attempting to count coup. Its interesting law, but again, your goal appears to be more about tarring your political opponents than debating the issue in good faith

Gimmeabreak: would YOU vote for a Presidential candidate that feels the President has the authority to arrest a U.S. citizen as an illegal enemy combatant with no charges being brought and no judicial review?

Fixed [emph added]. There's no need to distort the question by omitting context.

Interesting law? We apprehend an American citizen on U.S. soil and he doesn't see a lawyer for almost two years during which time the reasons and justifications for holding him constantly shift and the government does everything it can to avoid having the substantive issues heard.

That is not interesting law, that is subverting and destroying the constitution. It is an impeachable offense as the President ignores an American citizen's fundamental right to habeas corpus (something we have taken for granted for only 700 years). That the courts and the Congress didn't have the spine to stand up to the president just makes it all the more appalling.

That so many Americans are so willing to throw away their hard-earned rights in the name of fighting terrorism is just plain scary.

You're dodging my question - is your contempt centered around the way the US dealt with Padilla or not? A simple yes or no is all I'm looking for, not a string of invalid assertions.

We apprehend an American citizen on U.S. soil and he doesn't see a lawyer for almost two years

Are you saying that if we capture Al Queda on American soil [with evidence that he was instructed to set off a dirty bomb], we should treat him differently than the other terrorists because he has American citizenship?

Interesting law? We apprehend an American citizen on U.S. soil and he doesn't see a lawyer for almost two years during which time the reasons and justifications for holding him constantly shift and the government does everything it can to avoid having the substantive issues heard.

That certainly sounds like an interesting case to me.

That is not interesting law, that is subverting and destroying the constitution.

The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to eliminate habeas corpus, if the public safety requires it, in response to invasion (e.g. 9/11). So obviously there's nothing automatically unconstitutional about what happened to Padilla. The relevant question is whether Congress had, in fact, stripped Al Qaeda affiliates of habeas corpus rights in the AUMF, or whether it had not in fact done so.

As the courts have now settled that question (with the 4th agreeing that the feds could hold Padilla and the Supreme Court declining to hear the case) your hysterical overreaction belongs alongside that of pro-life activists who scream that pro-choice candidates are baby-murderers engaged in unprecedented civil rights violations against aborted babies. Amusing semantically, but nonsensical from a legal standpoint.

The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to eliminate habeas corpus, if the public safety requires it, in response to invasion (e.g. 9/11). So obviously there's nothing automatically unconstitutional about what happened to Padilla.

First off, there has been no invasion or rebellion, so the Congress cannot suspend habeas corpus. The courts have been avoiding the issues and been punting it on procedural issues to avoid a constitutional crisis.

As for the Padilla. Look at what he has actually been charged with. It has nothing to do with the accusations initially (or even secondarily) alleged. The reasons for holding him keep changing.

As the courts have now settled that question (with the 4th agreeing that the feds could hold Padilla and the Supreme Court declining to hear the case)

The courts have refused to settle the issue. They have used procedural and jurisdictional issues to avoid ruling on the merits. Leaving him in a legal limbo.

Are you saying that if we capture Al Queda on American soil [with evidence that he was instructed to set off a dirty bomb], we should treat him differently than the other terrorists because he has American citizenship?

Actually no. I am saying anyone captured on American soil is entitled to full protection of the U.S. constitution. We are not formally at war with anyone so the espionage cases from World War II simply do not apply. That being said, I can see principled arguments in the case of persons captured in something in that approximates a military operation being held in military custody and being declared combatants and subjected to abbreviated due process rights.

But that is certainly not the case with Padilla. Arresting an American citizen at an airport coming off a commercial flight with no means to carry out any kind of operation, that is stretching the definition of "combatant", illegal or otherwise, to the breaking point. Under that definition, anyone can be a combatant, simply on the say-so of the president.

Freder Frederson said..."Yep, that's right Simon, I got my best bud Ramesh Ponnuru to plant a story in the National Review Online slandering both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani just so I could make you and Ann look like a couple of fascist supporting hypocrites."

Freder, I'm not saying that Giuliani wasn't asked some question about detaining citizens. And I'm not saying that the answer didn't satisfy the President of the Cato Institute. What I'm saying that it is absolutely ludicrous to expect Ann -- or me, or anyone else -- to condemn Giuliani when we have neither a quote of the question nor a quote of his reply. Not even a credible paraphrase! You've got nothing until you come back with an actual quote.

Fen said..."Gimmeabreak: would YOU vote for a Presidential candidate that feels the President has the authority to arrest a U.S. citizen as an illegal enemy combatant with no charges being brought and no judicial review? Fixed [emph added]. There's no need to distort the question by omitting context."

I don't see what the relevance is. Just because the President defines a citizen held on U.S. territory as an "illegal enemy combatant" doesn't deprive them of the right to habeas relief. (Again, I stress the narrowness of my point - a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.)

Mark: "And you yourself admitted today that "you made it quite nasty" in your effors to castigate feminists who in your view were being hypocritical. So, I think that her reaction was perfectly normal. Sorry."

Sorry, yourself. You've got the chronological order off. I said that about the second post. She wrote that on the first post, and she was talking to my commenters, not to me.

And I know this is hard to understand, Ann, but give it a try: the bloggers are leftists, supporters of the Democratic party. Clinton is the most recent Democratic president. He was reasonably progressive; perhaps not as much as some would have wished, but definitely not a regressive like the one you voted in three years ago. He has never sexually harassed anyone. You need to stop parrotting wingnut talking points if you want to try to pass yourself off as in any way liberal. He had consensual sex with a woman not his wife. Okay, some people consider that a terrible sin. Fair enough. But it doesn't make a guy a rapist and it really doesn't have much connection with feminist issues. So far as I know, feminists do not have a problem with having sex.

Are you saying that if we capture Al Queda on American soil [with evidence that he was instructed to set off a dirty bomb], we should treat him differently than the other terrorists because he has American citizenship?

When I see that picture I think of several things. I see a former President still willing to engage with political activists. I see a bunch of patriotic Americans who care about their country (regardless of whether I agree with them or not). And I recall that a law professor who lacks the ability to feel shame or empathy was abusive to the folks in the picture.

I see little difference between you and the Swiftboaters - the main one being that at least the Swiftboaters actually served their country.

You didn't reframe the picture, you just added a dimension. A painful dimension for those of us who do have empathy and feel the shame you should feel.

"If I must suffer for that achievement -- which I sought -- so be it."

But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks, Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass; I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty To strut before a wanton ambling nymph; I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion, Cheated of feature by dissembling nature, Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time Into this breathing world, scarce half made up, And that so lamely and unfashionable That dogs bark at me as I halt by them; Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace, Have no delight to pass away the time, Unless to spy my shadow in the sun And descant on mine own deformity: And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover, To entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determined to prove a villain And hate the idle pleasures of these days.

I stand corrected: she (Jessica) originally reacted to your commenters. And frankly, I am sick of this topic by now. However, I must repeat that her reaction to your commenters' sexist remarks was perfectly normal. And you didn't address the larger point: she did not flatter herself, contrary to your statement. With that said, I am waiting for your post on the Supreme Court's EPA case. :)

Ann, I know your reading comprehension decreases the more you spend time with wingnuts, but my comment was pointing out that YOU are the cat, and YOU are the one who goes into a snit about women who DARE leave the house while being sexually threatening to you.

If it's bad feminism to cat at women about their looks, then you are the bad feminist. I wasn't the one who wrote endless posts bitching that some hot young thing with breasts dare call herself a feminist. I'm not the one running around implying that feminism is about removing competition for sexual attention.

I really cannot get your claim that you turned away from the democratic party because of its treatment of Clinton and Lewinsky (who looks absolutely nothing like Jessica Valenti, btw). What would you have had the democratic party do? I mentioned before that I was not happy with the Lewinsky affair and found it unsettling. And there were some who probably swallowed bile to present a united front. And that caused you to LEAVE the party? I call BS.

You know what you need to compare? Not the treatment of Clinton and Thomas, but the treatment of Lewinsky and Hill. Are you trying to say Lewinsky was villified by the left? I sure don't remember that. There were people who made clear they considered her to be a big girl and an autonomous actor (something I happen to disagree with) but you did not get anything like the "nutty, slutty" attack on Hill.

The thought that you would be so upset by the defense of Clinton that you would turn to the party that bashed Anita Hill for solace really doesn't make any sense for me. It you are going to call that your defining moment, you need to be a bit clearer about why.

Coming back to Giuliani; here's the citation from National Review's Rich Lowry:

"Rudy was asked about the Iraq supplemental. He said he finds it "irresponsible and dangerous." Then he began to muse about, after a veto, "would the president have the constitutional authority to support them [the troops], anyway?" He said he's a lawyer so he wouldn't offer an opinion "off the top of his head," then he proceeded to do just that. He seemed to suggest that Bush could fund the Iraq war without Congress providing funding, but it was confusing. In an interview with a New Hampshire TV reporter after his remarks, he seemed more categorical and said, since the war had been authorized by Congress, the president has "the inherent authority to support the troops." But he added, "You have to ask a constitutional lawyer."

In a brief press availability in front of his campaign bus, I asked Rudy whether he was saying Bush could veto the supplemental and, in the absence of a deal with Congress, fund the troops in Iraq under his own authority. "If he vetoes it, he's going to have to find a way to support the troops," Rudy said. "They have given him the authorization to fight the war," and "Bush has the power to redirect the money and time to work something out" with Congress. The last bit suggests that maybe Rudy is thinking in terms of only the next few weeks and not making a broader claim about presidential authority (although he kept on saying "inherent authority" over and over)."

The cite is here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjBhMDQxMDgyZWRmMDNhYWZiMWIxMTM5MzRhY2U1Mzg=

(Sorry, I don't know how to put links correctly but you'll easily find this if you visit the Corner)Giuliani's view is so extreme that even Rich Lowry disagrees with it.Would you please state whether these comments disqualify Rudy in your view?

"I concede that I started it and that I meant to be nasty. In that sense, I can't complain... "

So, you admit you picked a fight, behaved in a petty, spiteful manner, insulted someone you've never met in a sexist manner, and now you want to cry and bitch and moan about the response you got to this behaviour?!

Contrary to previous commenters this proves you are NOT a liberal. Just a self obsessed, small minded, pathetic little egotist.

It was used as recently as 9/11, and late last year that notable right-winger Dennis Kucinich described how it applied if Congress didn't specifically deauthorize military action in Iraq in terms pretty similar to what Guliani said.

Is this the best that you could come up with? The Act that you are describing allows DoD to temporarily re-route available funds; it does not invest President with any kind of "inherent authority" to continuously fund the war. Also, as the Corner's reader himself points out, the Food and Forage Act can be easily dealt with by including a statement "notwithstanding the Food and Forage Act, etc."

The larger point, of course, is that this whole episode is one more proof of Giuliani's breathtakingly expansive view of the Executive power.

Instead of defending everything she says or does, and everything Bush says or does, why not actually debate the topics at hand?

A question is raised regarding a President jailing someone without being charged and you go into the same ol', same ol' "but he's a terrorist" routine. Someone asks about not having an attorney for 2 years and you immediately go into the same ol', same ol' "but he's a terrorist" routine. (Which, in the case of Padilla...who the hell knows? Without a trial or an attorney...how would ANYONE know??)

We can get that bullshit from Sean, Rush and Bill every day on the TV...why not come up with some NEW material? (And, as for someone actually being a "terrorist," your point is that as long as the President "thinks" they are...THEY ARE.)

Amanda: "If it's bad feminism to cat at women about their looks, then you are the bad feminist. I wasn't the one who wrote endless posts bitching that some hot young thing with breasts dare call herself a feminist. I'm not the one running around implying that feminism is about removing competition for sexual attention."

How utterly dishonest to characterize my writing as meaning that. This is typical of those who don't want to deal with the serious question I raised about feminists who cozy up to Bill Clinton instead of criticizing him for setting feminism back 20 years. I will take you seriously when and if you ever do that.

Meanwhile, you throw up a smokescreen full of things I didn't say and attitudes I don't have, things that Clinton defenders are using to try to discredit me.

My post referring to breasts was mostly about the breast imagery Jessica put all over her blog. I also talk about the delighted and proud posing with Clinton. And, it's true, I talk about the way she angled her body toward him in a way that made viewers of the picture call to mind Monica Lewinsky and all the misdeeds Clinton has been accused of and feminists have defended him for.

I wrote a satirical post which was elliptical but was understandable by those who are not in denial about what Clinton did. I meant to lampoon the feminists who love him.

And I do think how women dress, pose, and deport themselves in the presence of a powerful man means something and is a proper topic of feminist analysis. There is a strong tradition of feminist writing about the female body, and I am writing in this tradition. Maybe you don't know or care much about it, because it is not very helpful in serving the interests of the Democratic Party.

How the hell did Clinton set back feminism 20 years ago???His PERSONAL behavior was abhorrent, but he emphatically DID NOT set back feminism 20 years.You are deliberately confusing a) Bill Clinton's sexual transgressions and b) his defense by many feminists. While I would have preferred that the feminists spoke out more against Clinton's behavior (although they did condemn it); it is, in my view, disingeniuos to conflate this with (a) and claim that Clinton set back feminism 20 years.

I agree completely with you about indefinite detention. The authoritarian pro-executive power crowd always avoids the question of who determines whether a person is a terrorist; they simply assume that he is on a "because I said so" from the executive branch. The whole point of allowing due process is to allow an innocent person to prove that he is not a terrorist.

Mark,This is a very different issue to what Freder was talking about, if that's what you're referring back to, but it's an interesting thing to look at.

I think Giuliani's dead wrong to suggest that the President has inherent authority to continue the war if Congress shuts off funding for it - I would allow some wiggle room for him or her to spend ultra vires to the extent such spending was absolutely necessary to withdrawing troops (that is, I'm not going to begrudge him $30 to top off the tanks of the last C-130 out of Baghdad), but in general, once Congress cuts off the money, that's it. The Constitution is absolutely crystal clear about this: it is given to Congress to "raise and support armies," Art. I § 8, and "[n]o money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law," Art. I § 9. "The President goes to war with the army that Congress gives him" - and as I said back in November, "if Congress does defund the war, and Bush continues to prosecute it, Congress can - and, in my view, should - impeach him." The same would apply to future Presidents.

In my view, Congress can limit the scope of a war when it gives the President authority to conduct hostilities, and the President is bound by those decisions - but what it can't do is rescind a declaration of war (any more than it can unscramble an egg) or make post hoc changes in that authorization. Its principle check against the President's power over the war once the shooting starts is thus the power of the purse: it can subsequently cut off funding. To deprive Congress of that power is essentially to loose the executive of its chains, so if Giuliani really thinks that once Congress has given the President "the authorization to fight [a] war," should the Congress subsequently cut of funding, the President has some independent "power to redirect the money and time to work something out," he's not only absolutely wrong about the Constitution, but advancing a terrifyingly broad vision of the power of the Presidency.

Thank you for the detailed and informative post. I am glad that there are sane conservatives with a reasonable view of limits to the executive power. While I almost always disagree with you, your posts make me think and challenge my own beliefs.

I might only add that, in my view, the proper view of the limitations on the executive power is one of the most important qualities in Presidential candidates. More important than almost anything else. That's why I will never ever vote for Giuliani no matter who the candidate from Democratic party is.

I do debate, I'm just having to clear the room of all your feeble strawmen first. Why don't you follow your own advice? Stop being such a disingenuous weasel? Approach the debate honestly?

A question is raised regarding a President jailing someone without being charged and you go into the same ol', same ol' "but he's a terrorist" routine.

No. I went into the "supply context" thing, as in "its dishonest to phrase the question without mentioning that the perps are being charged as illegal combatants." You're trying to imply that some believe POTUS can snag anyone of the street without cause and imprison them indefinately. Thats a misrepresentation.

Someone asks about not having an attorney for 2 years and you immediately go into the same ol', same ol' "but he's a terrorist" routine.

Again, another distortion on your part. I was pointng out that the case was arguable, was unsettled law, hardly a bedrock principle of the Constitution, and noted it by listing the decisions and their reversals up the court system.

I'm beginning to realize that maybe the Left doesn't argue in bad faith, they just can't comprehend what they read.

peggy: Are you trying to say Lewinsky was villified by the left? I sure don't remember that.

Team Clinton was tagging her as a deranged stalker who was lying about any affair. And were you aware that Jones, Wiley, and Lewinski were all Democrats, or did you "forget" that too? See, if Clinton were a Republican, the feminist movement would have drilled that info into your head as just another example of how sexual predators attack the victim's credibility.

Get off the Bill Clinton is the devil incarnate garbage. He hasn't destroyed the feminist movement, he isn't reviled by women throughout the world. He didn't embarrass the America.

He's actually highly respected by damn near everybody you ask...except the wingnuts of course, they're so jealous of the man they can't think straight.

If you really want to discuss someone who's ruining people's lives, let's throw your good buddy, George W. Bush into the mix.

Blathering on about how someone might have destroyed the feminist movement pales in comparison to what G.W. Bush has wrought. (But, hey, why not list all of the wonderful things Bush has done for America over the past 6+ years....then compare them to the 8 years Mr. Clinton ran the show.)

It's MY OPINION...that history will be much kinder to Mr. Clinton than it will to Mr. Bush, regardless of people like yourself, who just can't stop hating Bill Clinton.

I agree about feminism as well. I went through Ann's comments on that notorious thread and her best explanation of the charge against Clinton is the harm that he allegedly did to the cause of taking sexual harrassment seriously. Of course, Ann cites not proof for this.But this statement is logically and substantively false. It is false logically, because it conflates Clinton's private actions (deplorable) with the fact that the others are now allegedly taking sexual harrassment less seriously. In other words, it holds Clinton responsible for the others' actions. The statement is also false substantively, because there's not a shred of evidence that we take sexual harrassment less seriously because Clinton did it.Have there been fewer sexual harrassment complaints filed? Is there a causation link? Do polls state that people take sexual harrassment less seriously now? Merely saying that Clinton harmed feminism without offering any proof does not make it so.

I noticed that the majority of women in the photo, and certainly the one who your cruelty was most aimed at, were in the range of 20+ years younger than you.

Personally, as a woman who is about your age, perhaps a little older, I think maturity has some responsibility to youth. You could have, and should have, found a way to make your point (your views on the photo, Clinton, etc.) that wasn't so intentionally, personally and publicly humilitating to the young woman in question.

One of the most deplorable, but never (that I'm aware of) discussed aspects of the Monica Lewinsky mess was the way Linda Tripp encouraged that young woman to look upon her not just as an intimate friend but as a "mother" -- a relationship that implies concern, care and mature guidance -- while in fact she was exploiting the younger woman's natural respect and trust in her as an older, more experienced and mature person, for her own ends.

I don't mean to equate the two different circumstances, of course. You had no personal relationship to the young woman in the photo. But still, maturity does have some responsibility to youth, and there is something especially distasteful about an older woman going out of her way to humiliate a younger one -- especially with sexual inuendo.

Peggy:Good luck on Fen "sourcing" any of her Clinton hate garbage. She's nothing more than Ann's main apologist and right wing nutcase on this blog.

The right refuses to let Clinton go...and for one basic reason: He epitomized sound leadership, something the right has a tough time understanding, and the only way to justify a G.W. is to attack the Mr. Clinton's purely personal screw-ups. (An I consider consensual sex between adults to be "personal.")

Mark,Thanks, I appreciate the kind words; can't I just persuade you to take the same line about Ann, though! I think your posts above about her are simply and plainly unfair.

On the subject of executive power, you might also be interested about this post of mine. I probably have a narrower view of the power of the executive branch than most unitary executive proponents, and while I recognize that the President has certain powers inherent in the nature of the institution -- just as, as one of my co-bloggers pointed out the other week, Congress' power to subpœna and conduct oversight hearings are inherent in the nature of that institution -- I do worry about the problem in ascertaining the content of the inherent powers of the executive. Without any real guidance from text, structure or even original meaning, I think Justice Jackson's framework is the best we're going to do, and even that doesn't answer the really hard questions.

"The following is excerpted from White House Counsel Charles Ruff's appearance before the House Judiciary Committee. During this series of exchanges, Rep. Lindsey Graham [R-S.C.] enters into a line of questioning regarding Sidney Blumenthal's testimony while before Kenneth Starr's grand jury.

Rep. Graham was particularly interested in Blumenthal's testimony indicating that the president met with him soon after the Lewinsky story broke in the press, and characterized Monica Lewinsky as a stalker and said that she had "threatened" him.

Soon after the meeting between Clinton and Blumenthal, reports began appearing in the media suggesting that Monica Lewinsky was known to stalk the president."

http://www.coffeeshoptimes.com/graham.html

And that right-wing shill, Maureen Dowd:

"Feminism died in 1998 when Hillary allowed henchlings and Democrats to demonize Monica as an unbalanced stalker, and when Gloria Steinem defended Mr. Clinton against Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones by saying he had merely made clumsy passes, then accepted rejection, so there was no sexual harassment involved. As to his dallying with an emotionally immature 21-year-old, Ms. Steinem noted, "Welcome sexual behavior is about as relevant to sexual harassment as borrowing a car is to stealing one."

For those folks interested in the Lewinsky as stalker thing, google "lewinsky stalker," and you will discover there was a major shouting match between Sid Blumenthal and Christor Hitchens over the issue; Hitchens claimed Blumenthal had put out that rumor and signed affadavits to that effect. Blumenthal denied it.

(does anyone bother to use google, or do we prefer to fight over the "facts" as we believe them to be)

For the lawyers out there: doesnt consentual sex between superior and subordinate constitute a "hostile environment?" Sure would have gotten me canned if I were boinking a subordinate in the last couple of places I have worked.

I read the post that you linked to and will probably comment on it later on.

About Ann, as I said earlier: I think she has many good qualities and is an interesting and astute writer/observer with the exception of her political posts. I read this blog almost daily. I don't think I was being unfair in my criticism; if you can refute the substance of it, please do so. Like the charge that Clinton set back feminism 20 years (see my 1:52 post).

I meant to get to this sooner, but was distracted by the recent infestation of ignorant trolls:

Freder: That being said, I can see principled arguments in the case of persons captured in something in that approximates a military operation being held in military custody and being declared combatants and subjected to abbreviated due process rights.

Thats much more reasonable. In return, I see the danger in an Executive Branch waging a political purge, and I agree we need safeguards to prevent a Freder Frederson being declared an enemy of the state and tossed down a hole.

But I also don't want a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed released back onto our streets because some agent forgot to read him his Miranda.

"Rep. Graham was particularly interested in Blumenthal's testimony indicating that the president met with him soon after the Lewinsky story broke in the press, and characterized Monica Lewinsky as a stalker and said that she had "threatened" him.

Soon after the meeting between Clinton and Blumenthal, reports began appearing in the media suggesting that Monica Lewinsky was known to stalk the president."

Yeah, your right wing talking points are very convincing. Not. "Soon after reports began appearing..."Any link to the reports? Who are the reports attributed to?

Maureen Dawd's assertion makes as much sense as Ann's attack on Clinton. "...when Hillary allowed henchlings and Democrats to demonize Monica as an unbalanced stalker, and when Gloria Steinem defended Mr. Clinton against Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones..."

First, Hillary has no power to somehow prevent "henchlings and Democrats" from doing anything. Gloria Steinem's defense is lame but, as I said before, some feminists' insufficient condemnation of Clinton is not an evidence of feminism's death.

rogerno, consensual sex between a supervisor and a subordinate does not constitute a hostile work environment. Nor does it constitute sexual harassment. Many employers discourage it, because it certainly opens the door to complex and hard to defend circumstances (especially when the relationship ends). But it is not in itself actionable.

fen,

from what you say clinton made private statements suggesting monica was unbalanced, a republican elicited that testimony during a public hearing. So who is trying to get the story out there?

and maureen claims that feminists focused on the consensual nature of the conduct. she doesn't like that, but it sure didn't destroy feminism, even if Maureen thinks so and Anne agrees. And it didn't destroy sexual harassment law, because it was not sexual harassment.

Does Anne credit Maureen when she writes on the subject? Her views sure are similar!

So Christopher Hitchens, like Republican Senator Graham, wants to get the story out there that democrats in private conversations referred to Lewinsky as unstable. Does not exactly show that the democrats were out there trashing lewinsky.

by the way, in a he said she said I would take Blumethal over Hitchens any day. Especially where you're talking about recollections of a social event, where cocktails may have been served.

Peggy: Many employers discourage it, because it certainly opens the door to complex and hard to defend circumstances (especially when the relationship ends). But it is not in itself actionable.

Well, that certainly wasn't the feminist stance before they whitewashed Clinton's abuse as just about sex. They lobbied for the language in the Violence Against Women Act, 1994 Crime Bill: since sexual predators in the workplace are so subtle in their attacks, the alleged victim has a right to any information that establishes a pattern of sexual predatory behavior in the workplace on the part of the defendant.

So, if you have a consenual affair with an employee [Lewinsky], and another employee [Jones] accuses you of sexual discrimination/harassment, that other employee has a right to have your mistress interviewed by counsel [Starr] to determine if she was also coerced or harassed. And if you commit perjury, obstruct justice, tamper with witnesses - you are violating the rights of the alleged victim.

Post Monica, the feminists rendered that down to its just about sex, censure and moveon.org

Peggy: by the way, in a he said she said I would take Blumethal over Hitchens any day. Especially where you're talking about recollections of a social event, where cocktails may have been served.

Peggy: a republican elicited that testimony during a public hearing. So who is trying to get the story out there?

That Republican also entered affidavits from reporters into the record that supported the line of questioning. I could try to find them for you, but I get the sense it would be a waste of my time. You'll find any excuse to deny the obvious.

and Maureen [Dowd] claims that feminists focused on the consensual nature of the conduct.

More specifically, she implicates Hillary and other Democrats. Here it is again, in case you've "forgotten" already:

Maureen Dowd: "Feminism died in 1998 when Hillary allowed henchlings and Democrats to demonize Monica as an unbalanced stalker"

She's not speculating, she's speaking from personal experience. Why don't you email her and ask her about it? Because I'm tired of being a research assistant for "feminists" who slept through the 90's.

Maureen Dowd has always had her own, unique outlook on feminism. Also, she always disliked Clintons, perhaps less than she disliked Bushies. So, while her opinions are often sharp and incisive; I would take her broad statements about the death of feminism with a grain of salt.

As I am tired of stating the obvious: yes, feminists should have done more in the 1990s, but it means neither that Clinton set feminism back 20 years ago nor that feminism is dead.

Also, it's obvious but worth stating: there is no one "feminist" view on sexual conduct between a supervisor and a subordinate; as Peggy stated, it's a complex issue and most employers discourage it. And again, it has no relevancy whatsoever to Clinton/feminism relationship unless someone can demonstrate that BECAUSE of Clinton, feminists changed their views on this matter.

I already responded to your links. They prove nothing except that some people with damaged credibility (aka Graham, Hitchens) accuse Clinton of talking badly about Lewinsky. You cited no evidence whatsoever that feminism was dead or set back 20 years.

Now I am interested too, are you a feminist? Ann has at least a credible claim to genuinely care about feminist issues and has legal scholarship on this topic. No offense, but do you care about feminism? Have you been a feminist? Have you supported the Equal Rights Amendment? My questions are in good faith.

I support their issues and have even marched with them, but I don't normally champion their causes. I used to pay close attention to the feminist left, but after Clinton I no longer trust them to be nonpartisan, and so I get my answers and guidance from moderate/conservative feminists instead.

So, I guess I would not refer to myself a feminist [even though I've defended feminism here better than the hypocritical Valenti/Marcotte crowd]. My activism is directed more towards foreign policy issues, like the war on terror.

As for setting feminism back, all you have to do is read the equivocations of Valenti-defenders here and around the net. They don't really believe in the things they've been lecturing us about, and thus undermine their credibility and their cause. They should be making my arguments for me. Hell, over on Ezra Klein's blog, the Valenti defenders even claim that groping an employee's breast is not sexual assualt....

To be fair, as the self-inflicted wounds of the Feminist Left discredited groups like NOW, it gave manuever space for other less extreme organizations to rise in their place. Thats been good for feminism. NOW no longer dominates the conversation the same way that say, the NRA dominates gun rights issues.

However, you are undermining your argument by pointing out that the demise of NOW has been good for feminism. I take no position whether or not it is true; however, if it is, it undercuts Ann's argument (with which I assume you agree) that Clinton set feminism back 20 years. According to your argument, feminism is alive and well as "less extreme organizations" play a bigger role now.

Citing comments with which you disagree does not support your position either, unless you concede that they represent feminism. But if they are "phony" feminists as you (and Ann) imply, then logically, whatever they say has no impact on feminism. Merely saying that they "undermine their cause" is an assertion without any proof. What cause? Why do they undermine it? In whose eyes?

I don't like conflating criminal issues with this discussion, but I think that if anyone doesn't consider groping a stranger's breast a sexual assault is probably not a feminist.

Up to now, I haven't seen any credible evidence supporting the claims that either Clinton set the feminism back or that feminism is in decline. on the contrary, I think there's plenty of evidence that feminism made huge gains, and the population as a whole internalized feminist values which just recently were very controversial.

The only impact on feminism that Clinton/Lewinsky affair had was to undermine credibility of some of feminist groups; but assuming it's true that these groups were hypocritical, then it's good for feminism that their credibility suffered!

However, you are undermining your argument by pointing out that the demise of NOW has been good for feminism

Oh, I know. Thats why I prefaced with "to be fair". And I agree with you that basic feminist principles have been internalized by the masses - else how could this conservative be so well-versed on the topic?

But if they are "phony" feminists as you (and Ann) imply, then logically, whatever they say has no impact on feminism.

I don't think they are "phony" feminists. I think they are partisan, and willing to sacrifice their feminist principles for political gain. I think feminism would be much stronger today and have much more credibility with "Joe Six Pack" if the Feminist Left hadn't prostituted themselves in exchange for a veto of the partial-birth abortion ban. They missed a golden opportunity to educate the country, and instead, their own acolytes remain ignorant and static. And I think Valenti sucking up to and posing with a sexual predator like Clinton symbolizes all that.